Hi Simon,
On Thu, 19 Sept 2024 at 18:36, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Ilias,
>
> On Thu, 19 Sept 2024 at 17:20, Ilias Apalodimas
> <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Sept 2024 at 18:00, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Ilias,
> > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (!addr)
> > > > > > + return log_msg_ret("mem", -ENOMEM);
> > > > > > + } else {
> > > > > > + pages = efi_size_in_pages(TABLE_SIZE);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + ret = efi_allocate_pages(EFI_ALLOCATE_ANY_PAGES,
> > > > > > + EFI_ACPI_RECLAIM_MEMORY,
> > > > > > + pages, &new_acpi_addr);
> > > > > > + if (ret != EFI_SUCCESS)
> > > > > > + return log_msg_ret("mem", -ENOMEM);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + addr = (void *)(uintptr_t)new_acpi_addr;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > > The tables should be written regardless of whether EFI_LOADER is
> > > > > enabled.
> > > >
> > > > *Why*? How do you expect to hand them over to the OS?
> > >
> > > Why - because boards which need ACPI tables to boot should generate
> > > them;
> >
> > Noone argued that.
> >
> > > also this happens when U-Boot starts up, in last_stage_init()
> > > How - it isn't possible, but eventually I suppose it will be, once we
> > > have a use case for booting with ACPI but without EFI
> >
> > Are you aware of such an OS? If not, we can accept the patches when we
> > have a reason.
>
> Which patches? This is how it works today. We set up the tables in
> last_stage_init(), so they can be examined while in U-Boot.
What I mean, is that until we have a valid use case to store the ACPI
in a bloblist, I prefer them being allocated with proper EFI memory
backing
>
> It is the patches to change this which I object to.
>
> > I remember patches being hard NAK'ed on using DTs to pass the ACPI
> > table address in the past.
>
> Yes, I believe Bytedance carries a patch locally for that :-)
Exactly
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we drop this else clause? We should always use the bloblist.
> > > >
> > > > Both Heinrich and I said the exact opposite. Unless there's a
> > > > perfectly good reason why we should keep them in bloblist memory, I'd
> > > > like us to do that
> > >
> > > The main reason is that we should not be putting things in memory
> > > between the start of RAM and the bottom of the U-Boot area. That
> > > region of memory is supposed to be for loading images. Most boards
> > > hard-code the image-load addresses in environment variables. But even
> > > if they didn't, we should not be using that memory for U-Boot data.
> >
> > EFI allows you to request a specific address to use. We can choose one
> > that fits the requirements
>
> So long as it is in U-Boot's space, that is fine. I just sent a patch
> about relocation which covers this. It occured to me that this feature
> of U-Boot, which I have always assumed was common knowledge, may have
> not been noticed.
>
> > >
> > > Another reason is that the bloblist is designed for this, for keeping
> > > tables in a small, contiguous area of memory, so that when passed to
> > > Linux they are not spread all over the place.
> >
> > Linux does not and will not read tables from a bloblist though
>
> Indeed. There really isn't any point, anyway, since there are other
> ways of passing the tables along...except for ACPI with FDT but that
> isn't a valid use case for Linux so far.
What we are trying to do with EFI is to stay as close to the spec and
the current OS implementations as possible. So again, please allocate
EFI memory for the ACPI tables. The patches to convert it to bloblist
allocating them are minimal, so we can do it, once there's an actuall
need for it.
Thanks
/Ilias
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
> [..]
